Mississippi State football is off to a 2-0 start to the 2026 season, and seems to have reached a new high point in the Jeff Lebby era with a 38-13 road domination of a solid Minnesota team. It was the program’s first blowout win of a power conference opponent since 2022
State’s offense looked unstoppable for much of the game, scoring touchdowns on all four of their first half possessions (each drive going at least 72 yards). The Bulldogs racked up 479 yards on 7.0 yards per play. Phenom QB Kamario Taylor completed 16/23 passes with three scores on over 10 yards per attempt. State ran for 252 yards, and did so with consistent success.
It was an equally impressive day for the Bulldog defense, holding the Gophers to just 292 yards (13 rushing!) and not allowing an offensive TD. Given State’s woes on the defensive side of the ball in recent years, there’s a fair case to made that was the more telling performance for this team moving forward.
But I, admittedly, possess more of an eye for offense, and I found this game particularly interesting because of the clash of styles between these two maroon-clad teams. Mississippi State and Minnesota are polar opposites offensively.
The Bulldogs operate on the extreme end of spread football in their Veer and Shoot attack, playing with a break-neck tempo, splitting receivers all the way out to the sidelines, and chasing explosive plays on almost every snap.
Minnesota, meanwhile, takes the more traditional approach to offense. I hesitate to call them “old-school” given that their current QB Drake Lindsey affords them the ability to be much more diverse than most in the passing game. But from a philosophical standpoint, they’re a classic Big Ten team. They want to lean on an under-center run game, controlling the line of scrimmage and the clock with steady gains, and compliment that with stout defense and special teams.
Mississippi State’s approach not only won the day. It controlled the game. A big reason that was the case actually fell on the Minnesota defense’s inability to match the Bulldogs’ athleticism and an, arguably, unpreparedness for what they were up against.
Southern Speed Runs Laps Around the Midwest
I frequently reference Ian Boyd, author of “America’s War Game“, in my writing because, quite simply, I’ve learned a lot of football reading his work. Specifically, he’s one of the best sources on the Veer and Shoot offense’s development, spread, and impact. Plenty of what I can tell you about the system comes from him.
Boyd has also made some interesting observations on geography’s impact on roster construction and play-style in college football. Mississippi State vs Minnesota combined those avenues, as we saw the Veer and Shoot at the center of a battle of geography, and I couldn’t help but view this matchup through the AWG lens (seriously, go check out the Substack).
Over the last decade, the Veer and Shoot has gone from being an anomaly to being a widespread approach to playing offense in college football. In the SEC alone there are six teams running an offense that is at the very least Veer and Shoot-adjacent. You can find squads applying elements of the system in the Big 12 and ACC, and several G6 programs run the scheme.
Where we’ve yet to see the Veer and Shoot implemented is in the Big Ten. Some of that is a product of mentality. A league that prides itself on “man-ball” wouldn’t dare resort to anything so “gimmicky.” Weather also plays a role, as frequent blustery conditions and the risk of snow and ice during Midwestern falls also make old-school offense more palatable.
But there is no bigger reason than the types of athletes available to sign in that part of the country. Simply put, there aren’t a plethora of fast dudes in the Midwest like there are in the South, and if you’re going to run the Veer and Shoot, you better have speed. The entire offense is predicated on attacking open space and winning 1-on-1 matchups, and that requires fast skill players.
As an example, there have been 20 total blue-chip wide receiver prospects from Midwestern states over the last three recruiting cycles according to the 247 Sports Composite Rankings. There were 32 such WRs in the Southeast in the 2026 class alone, and that’s not even including kids from Texas.
Obviously not every 4 or 5-star WR prospect is a burner, but the majority of them certainly possess enough speed to win in 1-on-1 situations. That’s a big reason why they’re rated like they are, and there’s a whole lot more of them down South.
It’s easier to stockpile the receiver talent, and more specifically the speed, necessary to run the Veer and Shoot when there’s numerous great athletes within close proximity to your program. Geography still plays a role in recruiting, and when it comes to finding the players to run this offense, the South has a sizeable edge over the Midwest.
So how does this come into play when analyzing Mississippi State’s offense against the Minnesota defense? If you’re going to defend against great athletes, you need your own great athletes to cover them. And unfortunately for the Gophers, they couldn’t match up.
It’s well-documented that Jeff Lebby’s priority at the WR position is speed, and this is the fastest group he’s had since arriving in Starkville. They had a notable edge over the Minnesota defensive backfield, and this can be seen just using recruiting rankings (I’m again oversimplifying things by equating an overall talent rating with “speed”, but humor me).
State’s top four WRs—Anthony Evans III, Zion Ragins, Sanfrisco Magee, and Marquis Johnson—had an average HS recruiting rating of 89.71. All but Magee were considered 4-star prospects (and many feel he should’ve been). Uncoincidentally, all four hail from either the Southeast or Texas.
Compare that to the Gopher DBs. The same trends of the available talent at WR in the South vs the Midwest apply when discussing cornerbacks and safeties. The South has a notable edge. Minnesota’s top six DBs had an average recruiting rating of 86.72, practically three points lower than the Bulldog wideouts. None were blue-chip prospects.
Interestingly, only two of those six were Midwest-natives. Three were Southerners while another came from the fairly talent-rich Maryland. Every Big Ten program, understandably, looks to land skill players out of the South for the exact reasons discussed. The problem for them is if you aren’t Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State, your chances of pulling the truly special athletes far from home are slim, so you’re left signing more of the mid-tier talent.
Those players are perfectly capable of developing, playing at a high-level, and holding their own most weeks in the Big Ten. But when facing a higher-caliber of athlete, as they did on Saturday against Mississippi State, it can spell trouble.
That, of course, is obvious, and it probably sounds condescending to discuss the matchup that way between programs that occupy similar real estate in the CFB pecking order. But it’s the simple truth. Proximity to talent allows mid to lower-tier SEC teams to field rosters with better athletes than mid to lower-tier Big Ten schools. Mississippi State ranked 20th in 247 Sports’ 2026 Team Talent Composite. Minnesota was 36th.
The Bulldog WR’s talent edge over the Gopher DBs is notable on its own, especially with the way State plays offense and creates matchups in the passing game. But there’s a good case to be made that Minnesota made things even worse for themselves with the defensive approach they took on Saturday.
One side affect of the Veer and Shoot not making its way up north? The teams up there aren’t exactly used to trying to defend it. This was Minnesota on the very first play of the game. They’re in a Cover 1/Man-Free look (single-high safety, man coverage, plus-one in the box).
This was a pretty classic way for teams to try and defend the Veer and Shoot when it was still a novelty, and for obvious reasons. The defense gets a numbers advantage in the box to take away the run. They have each receiver accounted for, which in theory should take away the quick throws off of RPOs. And they’ve taken away the deep middle of the field, so vertical attempts have to come on lower-percentage throws outside the hashes. Plus, the defense is in position to blitz and either get a sack or force a poor throw/throw-away before any WR can get free downfield.
Truthfully this approach is still a popular answer for teams that possess similar or better talent. If you can successfully match-up with the WRs, you’re in business.
But therein lies the problem for most teams: they can’t match-up with the wideouts. Veer and Shoot teams recruit speed specifically to dominate these looks. They live to take vertical shots outside. If you successfully cover it or they miss on the throw, so be it. They’ll line up fast and try it again, and again. Are you prepared to handle that all game while also dealing with their relentless tempo? Chances are, you’ll eventually get beat, probably several times.
That happened to Minnesota on Saturday. They repeatedly asked their DBs to cover 1-on-1 against WRs significantly more talent than them, and it didn’t go well. Ironically, they did manage a TFL on that very first play of the game, but that was immediately followed by this…
Minnesota actually runs a Cover 3 look on this play, but it doesn’t matter. The spacing created from wide splits vs a loaded box presnap makes this a fairly easy pitch-and-catch for an explosive play. Just a few plays later, they were caught biting hard on a fake-screen and go shot for a score.
It’s a great play design and a man-coverage killer, but it’s a whole lot tougher to deal with when you don’t have anyone to defend over top. Whether playing man or zone, the Gophers stayed in single-high looks for most of the game. Again, they wanted to have numbers vs the run, and I’m sure they also felt their pass-rushers would harass Kamario Taylor throughout the game. Credit to the Bulldog offensive line for making sure that didn’t happen.
The point about wanting to take away the run is another sign of inexperience in defending this scheme. Your best bet in slowing down a Veer and Shoot team isn’t taking away the run. It’s taking away explosive plays. They want to overwhelm you with more quick scores than you can keep pace with. Sacrificing some run defense in exchange for preventing those quick strikes is how you stay in the fight.
That clearly wasn’t on Minnesota DC Danny Collins’ mind. The Gophers didn’t load the box here, but they’re again playing Cover 1 with a robber safety aggressively playing the run. It may not have mattered on this play given that Anthony Evans literally runs by both the nickel and free safety with a post, but having someone else playing deep certainly wouldn’t have hurt.
The Gopher’s only real answer for limiting the Bulldog passing offense was to grab receivers and hope they weren’t flagged for P.I., which they repeatedly were. Their DBs were put on islands against better athletes, and they got burnt.
Circling back to the intro and the idea of clashing styles in this game, the Minnesota defense gave the Minnesota offense absolutely no chance at keeping pace. The Gopher offense wanted to be able to sit on the ball, eating up the clock while plodding along for steady gains. Even in their passing game, they look for efficiency over explosives.
For that to have worked, they needed their defense to get State out of their comfort zone by forcing them into long drives where they have to execute for modest gains rather than having layups for big yardage. They did not, and they were out of it before the half.
None of that is to say that Mississippi State doesn’t still win this game with ease if Minnesota had taken a different defensive approach. State’s defense did their own job of shutting down the Gophers entirely early on while the offense built a lead and keeping them out of the endzone on their longer drives.
And as we know, selling out to stop the run didn’t do Minnesota any good regardless. The Bulldogs still had their way with them on the ground anyways.
State’s OL performed really well in the run game, and Fluff Bothwell ran like a man possessed for four quarters. Had Minnesota looked to take away the big passing plays first, I have no doubts the Bulldogs would’ve been fine offensively. It just might have taken longer before this game was in-hand.
That final point should be a reason for optimism in this team going into SEC play. What happens when State faces defenses that have good athletes on the backend and don’t give them open space downfield all game? Well, you’ll still take your chances that their WRs will manage to get themselves open, and Kamario Taylor will rifle them the ball.
But if the looks are there to run, this team looks much more equipped to lean on that part of their offense than they have the prior two seasons under Lebby. Bothwell + Taylor behind an OL that looks much improved could be a strong enough ground game to take advantage when defenses take the “smarter” approach to defending this offense.
And that’s why this is clearly the most dangerous Mississippi State offense we’ve watched in several years. They’ll undoubted face much tougher tests than Minnesota in SEC play, both athletically and schematically, but they’re poised for a big year.
Leave a Reply